Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › CD and SACD formats questions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CD and SACD formats questions - Page 3

post #31 of 40

we (heart) gregorio [aka a public service message]

brighten, ditto on the

yah, me either, but i've missed gregorio's entertaining posts sooooooooooo much. and let's not forget his charming way with insulting and attacking anyone who dares question his (self-proclaimed) authority. thread after thread where he rants about the evil of hi-res and seemingly tries to perform total revisionism of digital audio theory, he disappears after being called out by people who actually understand digital signal processing, data conversion, systems theory and implementation etc.

---

it was heartbreakingly difficult going through gregorio withdrawl last year when he disappeared late-June, away from HF for almost 8 long months, after having been exposed as not even understanding digital audio basics: sampling theory, quantization, etc.....

"G" had for months ignored or responded dismissively to PMs and posts from numerous folk attempting to help with his misconceptions..... whenever challenged or questioned, avoiding or deflecting, spitting back defensively -- the standard response (when there was any technical reference) usually mentioning "dithering quantizers" or, more often, his extensive experience working with (insert big orchestra, or conductor, or artist name here), of having been involved with audio since people were in diapers or somesuch, of owning incredibly glorious equipment.... and inevitably when challenged, structuring his response in a fashion always including himself in the referenced group (note gregorio's heavy use of the royal "we" when quoting tasty snippets of digital audio theory, or namedropping, often using info out of context)...

---

saying he's going to leave head-fi and go post somewhere else where he is appreciated.....and finally admitted he doesn't understand the mathematics or technology underlying digital audio.

---

then of course there was the theme of presenting himself as a (university) "lecturer" but it turned out he is a pro-tools instructor.... not surprising, as much digital audio posting pretty much read like pro tools documentation boilerplate.

reappeared in Feb 2009, seems to have read a few well-referenced (but in some cases controversial) websites/books/papers: came back with a vengence, regurgitating those sources (and dropping names extensively) and emotionally -- and often derisively -- presenting their content as fact rather than the experimental, marketing, or opinion pieces that they in some cases were. however, even in his very entertaining personal digital audio manifesto thread (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/2...ploded-415361/ ) still misses some basic understanding about sampling theory and quantization

doesn't look like his stance has changed much, wrt hi-res or much else.

---

but lo! just when we've missed gregorio's attempts to redefine digital, fully revise many decades of communications theory, sampled-data systems, data conversion technology and the like; he takes on linear systems!

there's a great thread also in Sound Science where he attempts to redefine how gain is calculated (ie how amplification works); not surprisingly, when he was called out on this one and asked to explain, he simply disappeared again (to quote another head-fier: "I'm curious about the answer as well – but I doubt it will be clearer than what we got so far if it arrives at all." http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f133/w...ml#post5702792)

---

for a person who goes to such lengths to tell the HF community how experienced and important he is in recording, mastering, production.... it's odd.... these little basic underlying freshman mistakes.... and gregorio invests lots of time posting extensively on Head-Fi; but there don't seem to be posters with a similar style or profile on any of the major recording, mastering or pro audio equipment webboards.....

if you'd like to have your own entertainment to see what you've missed (or just verify and expand upon the few charming concepts noted above), grab a tasty burger or your favorite beverage, sit down and go back through gregorio's post history (2008 up through when he disappeared end-June, and then onward from the glorious return in 2009 february).

makes for reading about hi-res....

---

btw, me? I happen to believe that well-mastered sessions presented in hi-res -- whether SACD or extended-resolution PCM -- through well-designed hi-res DACs and playback electronics, often present a significant improvement in sound over redbook.

for some interesting apples-to-apples comparison using files of varying bit depth and sampling frequencies, sourced from the identical master, check out some of the new 2L products, or mastering engineer Kent Poon's "Audiophile Jazz Prologue III" (aka AJP3) demonstration product available through his site Design w Sound

now where's the salt....
post #32 of 40
emmodad - If you are going to call me a liar or ignorant you'd better have some facts to back up you assertion. Of course you don't have any facts because pretty much every word in your post was bullsh*t!

Just because you are incabable of understanding basic digital audio theory doesn't mean that others aren't. And you have the nerve to talk about my mis-conceptions, classic. You tell me then, what basic understanding of sampling theory and quantisation is it that I'm missing?

I'm going to dissapear again soon, I've got a lot of work coming up and to be honest I'm getting completely bored on here. Ignorance is understandable, audio is a complicated business but arguing and insulting based on ignorance seems the order of the day for many people here who seem to love their ignorance and don't want learn. Enjoy your audiophile fuses, cables and your demonstrated complete ignorance of audio...
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
I'm going to dissapear again soon, I've got a lot of work coming up and to be honest I'm getting completely bored on here. Ignorance is understandable, audio is a complicated business but arguing and insulting based on ignorance seems the order of the day for many people here who seem to love their ignorance and don't want learn.
This is the tone that makes it hard for me to feel any sympathy – or compassion and solidarity – for you in your now situation. I'm not happy at all with emmodad's post full of personal insults, ridicule and condescendence. Nobody deserves such a dismantlement of the personal dignity in public, rehashing of old mistakes. But there may be a reason for this.

So our discussion was boring for you... a discussion with an ignorant forum member not worthy of your superior state of knowledge. But I don't believe you. I rather think it has been annoying for you to find contradiction instead of mere admiration. And logically this can only happen due to ignorance from the other side. I have been aware of that for a long time, but have decided to overlook it in the interest of the discussion and my own curiosity to discover new aspects and facts. You try too hard to be seen as the knowledgeable audio professional. Which you are, to some degree, but only to some degree. You know what I'm talking about.

So if you insist that this forum and its members are boring, there won't be many people who'll miss you after you've left us. Sorry!
.
post #34 of 40
Hi Jazz, what is the ultrasonic content you measure in these hi rez systems/recordings? [music content , noise?]
Are super tweeters etc still in vogue?

I have not paid attention to all this last .00000% stuff for a while, just been enjoying my low-fi portable music,

Interesting thread though.



.
post #35 of 40
Hi Mark

Quote:
Originally Posted by setmenu View Post
...what is the ultrasonic content you measure in these hi rez systems/recordings? [music content, noise?]
There was a link with two versions (low- and high-rez) of a song called «Dragon Boats». This is an excerpt of it which shows signal content between 40 and 45 kHz:



This above ultrasonic sequence most likely is from a mandoline. There are also a steel-stringed guitar, a banjo and male vocals on the recording.


Quote:
Are super tweeters etc still in vogue?
I'm not in the speaker scene anymore, so I don't really know the latest trends. I just don't remember to have seen that much super tweeters attached on the top of speaker cabinets lately, and in the latest audio magazines I've browsed there weren't any integrated super tweeters which have catched my attention. So I guess they're a bit out of fashion. But modern (dome) tweeters generally reach higher than they did some years ago, some of them go cleanly up to 30 kHz or higher.


Quote:
I have not paid attention to all this last .00000% stuff for a while, just been enjoying my low-fi portable music.
No need for excuses! (Just kidding.) I enjoy both, particularly in the now season. But apart from my regular sound editing, my portable setup gets clearly more use nowadays as well. This may change when the HD 800 shows up in Europe.
.
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
This is the tone that makes it hard for me to feel any sympathy – or compassion and solidarity – for you in your now situation. I'm not happy at all with emmodad's post full of personal insults, ridicule and condescendence. Nobody deserves such a dismantlement of the personal dignity in public, rehashing of old mistakes. But there may be a reason for this.

So our discussion was boring for you... a discussion with an ignorant forum member not worthy of your superior state of knowledge. But I don't believe you. I rather think it has been annoying for you to find contradiction instead of mere admiration. And logically this can only happen due to ignorance from the other side. I have been aware of that for a long time, but have decided to overlook it in the interest of the discussion and my own curiosity to discover new aspects and facts. You try too hard to be seen as the knowledgeable audio professional. Which you are, to some degree, but only to some degree. You know what I'm talking about.

So if you insist that this forum and its members are boring, there won't be many people who'll miss you after you've left us. Sorry!
.
You've got it the wrong way around Jazz.

There are threads on here which I given up on, either because some people intentionally don't want to understand or because I haven't explained clearly enough. Either way I've been passing on my knowledge on head-fi for free, when under normal conditions I charge for it. I can appreciate people arguing as a method to achieve greater understanding but I don't have to stand for personal insults and attacks. This would even be true if it were coming from a more knowledgeable professional than me but is particularly galling when it comes from people who obviously don't have the first idea what they are talking about.

While I felt that some people were gaining from the information I posted up here I was happy to continue posting it. It's got to the stage now though where I seem to have become the target for the most ignorant and so my presence here has just become a waste of my time.

As you've said, you won't miss my presence and many others seem to feel the same. I'm sure that mediums and clairvoyants felt exactly the same when Houdini died. So you have fun chuckling at my "mistakes" as you call them, go right ahead and enjoy your ignorance, enjoy infecting others with it and enjoy wasting your money being screwed by audiophile companies who depend on that ignorance.

From now on I'm going to limit my discussions to fellow professionals, where I can find intelligent discussion and the common courtesy of respect. I see why professionals avoid the audiophile community and after my experience here, I now have a much better understanding and appreciation of why professionals in general hold audiophiles in such contempt.

So long ...
post #37 of 40
Hmm I haven't followed this thread but is indeed a shame to see such a valuable member as gregorio leaving.

I do feel like thanking him for all the knowledge he shared. And I wish he can stay to help other members like me who really seek for more information but is difficult to find here.
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
...I don't have to stand for personal insults and attacks. This would even be true if it were coming from a more knowledgeable professional than me but is particularly galling when it comes from people who obviously don't have the first idea what they are talking about.
I don't recall having attacked you one single time. And I certainly don't count myself to the «people who don't have the first idea what they're talking about».


Quote:
As you've said, you won't miss my presence...
I haven't said that!


Quote:
I'm sure that mediums and clairvoyants felt exactly the same when Houdini died.
Apparently you put yourself on a higher throne than others do.


Quote:
So you have fun chuckling at my "mistakes" as you call them, go right ahead and enjoy your ignorance, enjoy infecting others with it and enjoy wasting your money being screwed by audiophile companies who depend on that ignorance.
This is the kind of tone that I never used in our communication.


Quote:
From now on I'm going to limit my discussions to fellow professionals, where I can find intelligent discussion and the common courtesy of respect.
Respect is something everybody deserves, even the so-called ignorants (in your view). Mutual respect is a precondition for a fruitful discussion. It's hard to debate with someone who constantly asks for respect and isn't willing to grant the same.
.
post #39 of 40
SACDs are proprietary data format on DVD disks with the same bit density as DVD - with the huge advantage (for Sony) of multi tiered copy protection

Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem applies - SACD and various DVD-A formats can have the same information rate but draw the corners of the Bandwidth-Dynamic range boxes differently as well as the division into multi-channel

people touting the bandwidth advantage of SACD's "2.8 MHz sample rate" seem to forget the limitation caused by required 50 KHz high order analog filter necessary to keep the +6 dB, MHz DSD energy out of your amplifier electronics - the rapid rise of the DSD noise floor above 20 KHz due to the 5th order noise shaping is clearly visible when looking at the output of a SACD player with a decent 24/192 sound card


DVD-A 16/192 has nearly the same bit rate and nearly 2x the bandwidth as the appropriately analog filtered SACD and with noise shaped dither 16/192 could beat the 120 dB SACD audio frequency noise floor

I'd guess that MLP lossless compression gives DVD-A the theoretical edge over SACD when equal time*channel audio streams are encoded and that noise shaped dithered 16/96 DVD-A with MLP encoding could be near the SACD deliverd Bandwidth-Dynamic range at ~1/3 the data rate - with the advantage of easy DSP processing of PCM vs DSD thrown in for free
post #40 of 40
emmodad - thanks for the very cathartic summary. Gregorio had been on my ignore list for months and I had no idea he had left until now. The last I heard of him he was doing his usual gregorio thing, which is to expend enormous effort spouting expert-sounding nonsense to fool less knowledgeable members into believing he understood the things he dribbled on about. To say his leaving is for the better is an understatement. Best of all, he left on my birthday!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › CD and SACD formats questions